Phrenology: Origins and Implications

Phrenology emerged in the 19th century, initially developed in Europe by physicians Franz Joseph Gall and Johann Gaspar Spurzheim. It gained traction in the Anglo-American context through the efforts of Scottish lawyer George Combe and was popularized in the U.S. by various professionals, notably the Fowler brothers, who identified themselves as practical phrenologists. This pseudo-science claimed to reveal aspects of an individual's character and potential by examining the contours of the skull.

Two key aspects of phrenology merit attention. Firstly, its founders and early advocates largely belonged to intellectual elite circles, particularly in the fields of medicine and law. Initially regarded as a legitimate science, it received endorsement from prominent figures, including university presidents. Although phrenology eventually fell out of favor among scholars, its concepts significantly influenced social and political realms. In my book, I explore how phrenological ideas shaped 19th-century perceptions of crime and criminal responsibility, including notions of insanity and the possibility of reform.

Secondly, even during its peak, phrenology was never a neutral endeavor; all sciences carry inherent biases.

The Intersection of Race Science and Social Reform

From its inception, phrenology's capacity to affect societal and political landscapes was critically examined. Some of its founders, such as Spurzheim and Combe, envisioned its potential for societal improvement, believing it could refine the masses for a better society. Phrenologists like the Fowler brothers often allied their beliefs with broader reform movements, including abolition and penal reform.

Moreover, like many scientific theories, phrenology was adaptable. Its principles were leveraged by both abolitionists to argue against slavery and by pro-slavery advocates as supposed scientific justification for racial hierarchies. Phrenology played a pivotal role in shaping 19th-century racial science, influencing works such as Samuel George Morton's "Crania Americana" (1839), which Combe augmented with a phrenological appendix. This publication is often seen as a cornerstone of American ethnography and anthropology, focusing heavily on race. Morton's findings were utilized to rationalize slavery and the forced displacement of Indigenous populations.

Subsequent works, including those by Charles Gliddon and Josiah Nott, further perpetuated these harmful ideologies, framing arguments for slavery based on notions of polygenesis and racial superiority.

The Evolving Legacy of Eugenics

As the 19th century waned and phrenology's influence diminished, new pseudo-scientific ideologies like eugenics took its place. Coined by British statistician Sir Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin, eugenics proposed a systematic approach to human advancement. This concept encompassed both “positive” eugenics, aimed at encouraging reproduction among those deemed fit, and “negative” eugenics, which sought to limit reproduction among those categorized as unfit.

Predictably, those labeled "unfit" often included people of color, individuals with disabilities, the economically disadvantaged, and others marginalized by society. Just as phrenology was initially celebrated by intellectual elites, eugenics garnered similar acceptance among scientists, reformers, and the public at the dawn of the 20th century. It infiltrated educational institutions, religious sermons, and public exhibitions promoting "Better Babies" and "Fitter Families."

Ultimately, eugenics left a lasting impact on political discussions regarding reproductive fitness, leading to the forced sterilization of countless individuals, predominantly women of color and those in institutions, often without their consent or knowledge.

The Persistence of Pseudoscience

Farrow referred to phrenology as a "pseudoscience," a term often used to diminish its perceived intellectual value. While this characterization may appear well-intentioned, it poses two significant issues. Firstly, it overlooks the long-lasting impact of phrenology and similar "discredited" sciences. Secondly, it trivializes the serious consequences that arise from such ideologies.

Even if labeled as "pseudo," these beliefs carry weighty implications. The acceptance of 19th-century racial science underpinned the continued oppression of Black Americans and the dispossession of Indigenous peoples. Eugenics led to the coercive sterilization of many women of color, including notable civil rights figures like Fannie Lou Hamer.

The presence of a modern phrenology supporter among the insurrectionists underscores the enduring influence of these 19th-century ideas, which remain rooted in contemporary political discourse. The historical context of phrenology, intertwined with notions of race and identity, has always been politically charged, and its legacy continues to resonate in today's socio-political climate.

Responding to a related query regarding the resurgence of phrenology, I assert that it has not resurfaced; it has merely persisted, shaping our language and biases into the present. This ongoing influence affects political discussions and realities. A month prior, I might have viewed this as an intriguing facet of my historical research, frustrated by the dismissal of my field as "pseudoscience," even as it reappeared in discussions of "neo-phrenology." However, after the Capitol riot, the issue is far from trivial—it is urgent and significant. With the recent attack on the Capitol, one must wonder where the influence of phrenology and other seemingly obsolete sciences will manifest next.